A4_PHEN-MIND_n7
A4_PHEN-MIND_n7
A4_PHEN-MIND_n7
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Lynne Rudder Baker<br />
Cartesianism and the First-Person Perspective<br />
she can do things intentionally; at the robust stage, she can conceive of herself as doing things. At<br />
the rudimentary stage, she can perceive things in the world; at the robust stage, she can conceive<br />
of herself as perceiving things. Although the robust stage of the first-person perspective requires<br />
language, it is exhibited throughout one’s life in characteristically human activities – from making<br />
contracts to celebrating anniversaries to seeking fame by entering beauty contests.<br />
So, a person with a robust first-person perspective can manifest her personhood in a much richer<br />
and more variegated way than can an infant who has only a rudimentary first-person perspective.<br />
What makes you now – with your robust first-person perspective – the same person that you were<br />
when you were an infant – with only a rudimentary first-person perspective – is that there is a single<br />
exemplification of the dispositional property of having a first-person perspective both then and now<br />
– regardless of the vast differences in its manifestations over the years. For example, an infant may<br />
manifest a first-person perspective (at the rudimentary stage) by drawing back from a looming figure,<br />
and an adult may manifest a first-person perspective (at the robust stage) by making a will. A human<br />
person from infancy through maturity until death (and perhaps beyond) is a single exemplifier of a<br />
first-person perspective – whether rudimentary or robust. Now in greater detail.<br />
Let us start with the rudimentary first-person perspective. The stage of the rudimentary first-person<br />
perspective is shared by human and nonhuman animals; the rudimentary first-person perspective<br />
connects animals that constitute persons with other animals. A human infant is a person constituted<br />
by a human animal. An infant is born with minimal consciousness and intentionality, which are the<br />
ingredients of a rudimentary first-person perspective. A person comes into existence when a human<br />
organism develops to the point of being able to support a rudimentary first-person perspective. The<br />
person constituted by the organism – the new entity in the world – has a first-person perspective<br />
essentially.<br />
The rudimentary first-person perspective does not depend on linguistic or conceptual abilities. The<br />
rudimentary first-person perspective is found in many biological species, perhaps all mammals, and<br />
seems to be subject to gradation or degrees. Among species, consciousness and intentionality seem<br />
to dawn gradually (from simpler organisms) and the rudimentary first-person perspective seems to<br />
become more fine-grained as it runs through many species in the animal kingdom.<br />
Darwinism offers a great unifying thesis that “there is one grand pattern of similarity linking all life”<br />
(Eldredge, 2000, p. 31). Considered in terms of genetic or morphological properties or of biological<br />
functioning, there is no discontinuity between chimpanzees and human animals. In fact, human<br />
animals are biologically more closely related to certain kinds of chimpanzees than the chimpanzees<br />
are related to gorillas and orangutans 1 .<br />
Human infants, along with dogs, cows, horses and other non-language-using mammals, also have<br />
rudimentary first-person perspectives. So, my view recognizes the continuity between human<br />
animals that constitute human infants and higher nonhuman animals that constitute nothing. In<br />
this way, the biological continuity of the animal kingdom is unbroken.<br />
But wait! If that is so, then why do I say that a person is only constituted by an animal and not<br />
identical to an animal For this reason: Although there is no discontinuity in the animal world –<br />
no biological discontinuity – the evolution of human persons (perhaps by natural selection) does<br />
introduce an ontological discontinuity.<br />
The ontological discontinuity between persons and animals lies in the fact that a human infant – who<br />
is not identical to the organism that constitutes her – has a remote capacity to develop a robust firstperson<br />
perspective. A nonhuman organism that does not constitute a person may have a rudimentary<br />
first-person perspective (as chimpanzees do), but it has no remote capacity to develop a robust first-<br />
1 Dennett, D.C. (1995), Darwin’s Dangerous idea, Simon and Schuster, New York, p. 336. Dennett is discussing Jared Diamond’s The<br />
Third Chimpanzee.<br />
2.<br />
The<br />
Rudimentary<br />
First-Person<br />
Perspective<br />
3.<br />
The Robust<br />
First-Person<br />
Perspective<br />
person perspective. And this remote capacity distinguishes persons from all other beings.<br />
A remote capacity is a second-order capacity to develop a capacity 2 . For example, a healthy human<br />
infant has a remote capacity to ride a bicycle. She does not yet have the capacity to ride, but she does<br />
have the capacity to acquire the capacity to ride a bike. When the young child learns to ride a bicycle,<br />
she then acquires an in-hand capacity to ride a bicycle; that is, in certain circumstances (when she has<br />
a bicycle available and wants to ride), she actually rides a bicycle and manifests her capacity to ride<br />
a bicycle. She may never learn to ride a bike, in which case her remote capacity to ride a bike would<br />
not issue in an in-hand capacity to ride a bike. Similarly, even though a remote capacity to develop<br />
a robust first-person perspective is an essential property of persons, a person may never actually<br />
develop a robust first-person perspective (if, for example, the person had a case of severe autism).<br />
The point is that an infant person has not only a rudimentary first-person perspective, but also has a<br />
remote capacity to develop a robust perspective; otherwise the entity would not be a human person.<br />
So, the ontological difference between persons and animals lies in the robust first-person perspective<br />
and in the remote capacity to develop one. In pre-linguistic persons (like babies), the rudimentary<br />
stage of the first-person perspective brings with it the remote capacity to develop a robust firstperson<br />
perspective. Nonhuman animals have no such remote capacity.<br />
So: What makes persons unique is that only persons have robust first-person perspectives. (If dogs<br />
learned to talk and acquired the capacity to conceive of themselves in the first-person, a new kind of<br />
entity would come into existence, canine-persons. But the point would still hold: only persons have<br />
robust first-person perspectives).<br />
To sum up: The rudimentary stage of a first-person perspective is a nonconceptual stage that entails<br />
consciousness and intentionality. The rudimentary stage is what ties us persons to the seamless<br />
animal kingdom; the robust stage is what makes us ontologically and morally unique. Now let us turn<br />
to what, exactly, a robust first-person perspective is.<br />
Unlike the rudimentary stage, which does not require language or concepts, the robust stage of the<br />
first-person perspective is a conceptual stage that entails the peculiar ability to conceive of oneself as<br />
oneself in the first-person. Conclusive evidence of a robust first-person perspective comes from use of<br />
complex first-person sentences like e.g., “I wonder how I will die,” or “I promise that I will stay with<br />
you” 3 . If I wonder how I will die, or I promise that I will stay with you, then I am thinking of myself<br />
as myself; I am not thinking of myself in any third-person way (e.g., not as Lynne Baker, nor as that<br />
woman, nor as the only person standing in the room) at all. Even if I had amnesia and did not realize<br />
that I was Lynne Baker, I could still wonder how I am going to die. Any entity that can wonder how<br />
she – she herself – will die ipso facto has a robust first-person perspective and thus is a person. She can<br />
understand herself from “within”, so to speak.<br />
In order to have a robust first-person perspective, one must have a concept of oneself as oneself from<br />
the first-person – a self-concept. The second occurrence of ‘I’ in “I wonder how I am going to die”<br />
expresses a self-concept. It is impossible that two people have the same self-concept (cf. Kripke, 2011,<br />
p. 298). A self-concept cannot stand alone; it is a nonqualitative concept that is used only in tandem<br />
with other concepts 4 . If I promise that I will take care of you, then I manifest a robust first-person<br />
perspective by expressing a self-concept; but also I manifest mastery of empirical concepts like<br />
“promise” and “taking care”. And it is in learning a natural language that one masters these other<br />
common empirical concepts that one joins to a self-concept. (Hume was right that when I look inside<br />
2 I found the handy distinction between remote and in-hand capacity in (Pasnau, 2002, p. 115).<br />
3 Hector-Neri Castañeda developed this idea in several papers. See “He: A Study in the Logic of Self-Consciousness”, Ratio, 8<br />
(1966), pp. 130-157, and “Indicators and Quasi-Indicators”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 4 (1967), pp. 85-100.<br />
4 I think that this point suggests that Hume’s famous passage, “When I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always<br />
stumble upon some particular impression” (Treatise, Book I, Part IV, Section VI, 253) does not imply that a self-concept has no<br />
extension, only that a self-concept can be deployed only with other concepts.<br />
22 23